* David Binderman <dcb314@xxxxxxxxxxx> [230417 10:23]: > Hello there, > > >It should be fine here. > > Perhaps I have been slightly less than clear. The discussion is about the *style* > of the code, *not* whether it works or not. My apologies for the lack of clarity. > > Expression is > > while (A && > B && C) > > The static analyser notices it is poor style to have B do a limit check, but have A use it. > Sure its working code, but suggest new code > > while (B && A && C) > > It won't make much difference to the code, it will merely be better style. > > 2. > > >> Source code is > >> > >> memset(pivs + tmp, 0, > >> sizeof(unsigned long *) * (max_p - tmp)); > > >It's not good here, I can fix it. > > sizeof( pivs[ 0]) is a better thing to say than sizeof( unsigned long). > There is reduced future maintenance burden, when the type of *pivs changes. > If you want to make the code better, then send a patch. It is very frustrating to try and decode a compilers output over email and be told it wasn't decoded to your liking. This is far more of a maintenance burden than the code you are trying to change.
